Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) on postoperative pain management and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that PENG block with PMDI would exhibit superior effects on postoperative pain control after THA compared to PMDI alone. Materials and Methods: From April 2022 to February 2023, 58 patients who underwent THA were randomly assigned into two groups: PENG block with PMDI group (n=29) and PMDI-only group (n=29). Primary outcomes were postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during activity at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (nausea and vomiting), Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, length of hospital stay, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and total morphine usage after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain for either resting NRS or active NRS. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCSQ score, length of hospital stay, WOMAC index, HHS, and total morphine usage exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain and clinical outcomes, indicating that the addition of PENG block to PMDI does not improve pain management after applying the posterolateral approach of THA. PMDI alone during THA would be an efficient, fast, and safe method for managing postoperative pain. This article was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Gov ID: NCT05320913).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) on postoperative pain management and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that PENG block with PMDI would exhibit superior effects on postoperative pain control after THA compared to PMDI alone. Materials and Methods: From April 2022 to February 2023, 58 patients who underwent THA were randomly assigned into two groups: PENG block with PMDI group (n=29) and PMDI-only group (n=29). Primary outcomes were postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during activity at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (nausea and vomiting), Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, length of hospital stay, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and total morphine usage after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain for either resting NRS or active NRS. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCSQ score, length of hospital stay, WOMAC index, HHS, and total morphine usage exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain and clinical outcomes, indicating that the addition of PENG block to PMDI does not improve pain management after applying the posterolateral approach of THA. PMDI alone during THA would be an efficient, fast, and safe method for managing postoperative pain. This article was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Gov ID: NCT05320913).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) on postoperative pain management and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that PENG block with PMDI would exhibit superior effects on postoperative pain control after THA compared to PMDI alone. Materials and Methods: From April 2022 to February 2023, 58 patients who underwent THA were randomly assigned into two groups: PENG block with PMDI group (n=29) and PMDI-only group (n=29). Primary outcomes were postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during activity at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (nausea and vomiting), Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, length of hospital stay, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and total morphine usage after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain for either resting NRS or active NRS. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCSQ score, length of hospital stay, WOMAC index, HHS, and total morphine usage exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain and clinical outcomes, indicating that the addition of PENG block to PMDI does not improve pain management after applying the posterolateral approach of THA. PMDI alone during THA would be an efficient, fast, and safe method for managing postoperative pain. This article was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Gov ID: NCT05320913).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) on postoperative pain management and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that PENG block with PMDI would exhibit superior effects on postoperative pain control after THA compared to PMDI alone. Materials and Methods: From April 2022 to February 2023, 58 patients who underwent THA were randomly assigned into two groups: PENG block with PMDI group (n=29) and PMDI-only group (n=29). Primary outcomes were postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during activity at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (nausea and vomiting), Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, length of hospital stay, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and total morphine usage after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain for either resting NRS or active NRS. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCSQ score, length of hospital stay, WOMAC index, HHS, and total morphine usage exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain and clinical outcomes, indicating that the addition of PENG block to PMDI does not improve pain management after applying the posterolateral approach of THA. PMDI alone during THA would be an efficient, fast, and safe method for managing postoperative pain. This article was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Gov ID: NCT05320913).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) on postoperative pain management and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that PENG block with PMDI would exhibit superior effects on postoperative pain control after THA compared to PMDI alone. Materials and Methods: From April 2022 to February 2023, 58 patients who underwent THA were randomly assigned into two groups: PENG block with PMDI group (n=29) and PMDI-only group (n=29). Primary outcomes were postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during activity at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (nausea and vomiting), Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, length of hospital stay, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and total morphine usage after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain for either resting NRS or active NRS. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCSQ score, length of hospital stay, WOMAC index, HHS, and total morphine usage exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain and clinical outcomes, indicating that the addition of PENG block to PMDI does not improve pain management after applying the posterolateral approach of THA. PMDI alone during THA would be an efficient, fast, and safe method for managing postoperative pain. This article was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Gov ID: NCT05320913).

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events. Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%). Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.